I don't get it. You can buy a new PS3 right now for less from Wal-mart. Yes, the HDD isn't as monstrous, but shouldn't Sony be trying to lower the price rather than raise it for the intended demographic?

Mine, too Patrick. That's because for a long time an upgrade cost $120. I wasn't about to pay that when I could get a 500 gig external for half that. Now that they've come down, I just don't see a point to buying a bigger drive when the new consoles are right around the corner (so to speak).

It's a little weird they didn't somehow manage to get a $200 model out, but I get the sense Sony isn't in a position to take a loss of system sales right now. The leaks earlier on about this model made it sound like it was all about getting the manufacturing cost down.

It's a little weird they didn't somehow manage to get a $200 model out, but I get the sense Sony isn't in a position to take a loss of system sales right now. The leaks earlier on about this model made it sound like it was all about getting the manufacturing cost down.

It's natural to get the manufacturing costs down after being out for 6 years. What's crazy is that this cheap ass console is actually raising the base price to $269 from $249.

It's a little weird they didn't somehow manage to get a $200 model out, but I get the sense Sony isn't in a position to take a loss of system sales right now. The leaks earlier on about this model made it sound like it was all about getting the manufacturing cost down.

It's natural to get the manufacturing costs down after being out for 6 years. What's crazy is that this cheap ass console is actually raising the base price to $269 from $249.

That's exactly what I mean -- I thought it was going to come with a price drop. They must just be taking bigger profits on each one sold now.

It's a little weird they didn't somehow manage to get a $200 model out, but I get the sense Sony isn't in a position to take a loss of system sales right now. The leaks earlier on about this model made it sound like it was all about getting the manufacturing cost down.

It's natural to get the manufacturing costs down after being out for 6 years. What's crazy is that this cheap ass console is actually raising the base price to $269 from $249.

That's exactly what I mean -- I thought it was going to come with a price drop. They must just be taking bigger profits on each one sold now.

This is Sony being content with just making money the rest of the gen instead of trying to sell more consoles. It would be insane if the ps3 or 360 have no real price drops this holiday, but they apparently don't care anymore. Looks like crappy bundles until the new consoles launch.

I was surprised to see so many people complain about this design (not here). I think it looks fine, especially from the company that, in my opinion, made terrible looking consoles up until the PS3 slim (which is saved by its plain-ness). The grill on top is odd, but the it has a nice profile overall. The top-sliding tray is crazy though, very strange choice.

@Peanut: Auto-patching and trophy sync are both convenience features. You don't need them. My PS3 experience was totally fine without them, and it's totally fine with them. Nobody else offers auto-patching (on consoles) so I'm fine with the idea that it's locked behind a paywall. Even Steam doesn't offer overnight patching. But multiplayer? If you don't pay for Gold, it's not like you get cheaper games because they don't have access to multiplayer; you still have to pay the same $60 for games where a big chunk of the development cost went to developing multiplayer that you'll never be able to play until you fork out another $60/year. That's fucking ridiculous.

So yeah, locking up overnight patching and trophy sync behind a paywall is not that big of a deal.

It also doesn't take the ridiculous amount of time to patch on the 360 that it does on the PS3. Everything about keeping that piece of hardware and its software up to date is an absolute nightmare. 360 updates take LITERAL seconds and with a full system update 5 minutes max. Again, I'm not defending Microsofts awful policies. I'm saying both consoles and both their paid programs are flawed. End.

It's a little weird they didn't somehow manage to get a $200 model out, but I get the sense Sony isn't in a position to take a loss of system sales right now. The leaks earlier on about this model made it sound like it was all about getting the manufacturing cost down.

It's natural to get the manufacturing costs down after being out for 6 years. What's crazy is that this cheap ass console is actually raising the base price to $269 from $249.

That's exactly what I mean -- I thought it was going to come with a price drop. They must just be taking bigger profits on each one sold now.

200 would be a definite sweet spot in convincing me to get one, but upping the price makes me want it less.

You know what's a complete joke for a subscription service? Getting f-ing access to the online component of the games I buy. Until that changes, I want no complants about anything in PS+.

No kidding. We're talking about a feature the competition doesn't even offer while they instead lock stuff you're already paying for behind additional pay walls.

Between that and the ads blanketing the screen while trying to find a game, I'm glad my 360 red ringed so much...well not glad per se, but it gave me great reasons to buy a PS3. I have no reason to look back.

@Stinky51012: "Microsoft's service is bad" is not an excuse to not make PS+ better.

It already is pretty good. Not sure what else people could want out of it honestly. And, no, I don't think automatic updates and trophies syncing is something to really care about. If you turn the system on more than once a week the problem usually takes care of itself.

So can you still use your own harddrive in the Playstation 3: 3.0? I put a 120GB Intel SSD in my Playstation 3: 2, 'cause don't need much storage space in a console, but it probably helped with New Vegas, which pulls from the hard drive all the time. (Every loading screen I figured 'hey, I'm saving time!')

@muralbat: The Wii U is a 6 year old piece of hardware too. Same boat. And I still don't see $250-300ish as expensive today for a reasonably powerful console. I mean these things were like $180 back in the 90s, so that's less than inflation even, and they're as comparatively powerful probably.

I turned on my Vita for the first time in months last night, updated the system software and eagerly checked out the game store. Even with modest expectations, I was really disappointed.

How has the system garnered so few "full" game releases, along with a really small selection of digital only games? Did Sony somehow believe that a selection of PSOne titles compatible with the Vita would make up for one of the worst first year software libraries for a new device in gaming history? I really want Sony to turn this around and justify my launch day purchase of the Vita, but I'm growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of commitment to the platform.

How has the system garnered so few "full" game releases, along with a really small selection of digital only games?

There was a real dearth of new games during the summer. Sony was probably so focused on the launch, that they neglected the months afterwards. Things should be picking up now, with LittleBigPlanet coming out and new retail releases every week of October.

So i guess the next Generation PS might still be still be 2 years off but I'm guessing they might be doing a reveal come next year

Honestly, I think Sony and MS are looking to see if the Wii U takes off like the Wii did. Personally, I think that unless the Wii U is a huge hit outside of the traditional Nintendo fanbase, Sony and MS can get away with a price drop next year since both systems aren't exactly doing poorly in the market now. This would also give them time to figure out how to put out the next systems at a price below $599USD.